DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
The instant application is a 371 of PCT/FI2020/050749 filed on 11/13/2020, which claims foreign priority to Finland application no. FI20195993 filed on 11/20/2019. The certified copy of the foreign
priority application FI20195993 filed on 05/19/2022 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/19/2022 and02/22/2023are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
The IDS filed on 01/30/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
Status of the Claims
The preliminary claim amendments filed on 05/19/2022 are acknowledged. Claims 1-8 are amended. Claims 9-19 are newly added.
Accordingly, claims 1-19 are pending and being examined on the merits herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites “…the CCA plant, and/or in the CCA plant”. Claim 6 depend from claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the CCA plant” in this claim because it is unclear as to what “the CCA plant” is referencing back to.
Claim 7 recites “…alkali hydrolysis (merceration)…”. Claim 7 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the parenthetical “(merceration)” is meant to limit “alkali hydrolysis”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 7-13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saxell et al. (US20170145119A1 in PTO-892) in view of Paunonen et al. (Journal of Cleaner Production, June 2019 in PTO-892) and Ennenbach et al. (EP2617708A1 in IDS filed on 05/19/2022), and as evidenced by Balkissoon et al. (Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery, 2023 in PTO-892).
Saxell et al. discloses a method for manufacturing cellulose carbamate (CCA) (see Abstract).
Saxell et al. discloses that the method comprises of a) providing a never-dried pulp, b) adding urea and mixing said pulp with said urea, c) mechanically treating said mixture, d) drying the mixture, and e) heating the relatively dry mixture, thus providing a cellulose carbamate. (see paragraphs 0016-0020). Saxell et al. discloses that the never-dried pulp may be a chemical pulp or kraft pulp (see paragraph 0028). Saxell et al. discloses the pulp is preferably a dissolved type and derived from hardwood or softwood such as pine, spruce, cedar, etc. (see paragraph 0029). Saxell et al. also exemplifies that the pulp in their method was taken directly from a pulp mill (see Example 1, paragraph 0070). Saxell et al. discloses that an auxiliary agent such as an alkaline metal hydroxide, ammonia, or hydrogen peroxide may be added to the pulp to decrease the degree of polymerization (see paragraph 0035), and that this auxiliary agent may be added before urea or at the same time with urea or after urea (see paragraph 0063). Saxell et al. discloses that ammonia gases were produced and removed from a reactor after the addition of hydrogen peroxide and urea to the pulp (see paragraph 0071-0072).
The difference between Saxell et al. and the claimed invention is that Saxell et al. does not expressly disclose dissolving pulp and/or generating kraft pulp at a chemical pulp mill and also does not disclose the integration of a flue gas system such that carbon dioxide from the flue gas is reacted with the released ammonia to produce the urea used in the carbamate production.
Paunonen et al. discloses the environmental impact of cellulose carbamate (CCA) fiber production (see Abstract). Paunonen et al. discloses that the carbon footprint of a cellulose carbamate factory integrated with a pulp mill, which recycles water and chemicals in energy-intensive operations, is comparable to viscose production in Europe (see Abstract). Paunonen et al. discloses that in the integrated pulp mill CCA factory as seen in Figure 2, the produced ammonia was circulated back to the process as urea (see page 873, right column second to paragraph and Figure 2 on page 874).
Ennenbach et al. discloses a method of forming urea by integration of an ammonia production process with that of a urea production process (see Abstract). Ennenbach et al. discloses that a common feature for urea production is reacting ammonia and carbon dioxide under elevated pressure (see paragraph 0004). Ennenbach et al. discloses that their method of forming urea comprises of obtaining ammonia and carbon dioxide from synthetic gas that is formed during steam reforming or gasification in connection with an ammonia production process. Ennenbach et al. further discloses that the ammonia gas stream and a flue gas stream containing the carbon dioxide are transported to a urea synthesis reactor to produce urea (see paragraph 0008).
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine Saxell et al. with Paunonen et al. and Ennenbach et al. before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by integrating a pulp mill as disclosed in Paunonen et al. into the CCA production method disclosed in Saxell et al. and further recycling the released ammonia in Saxell et al. back to urea as disclosed by Paunonen et al. by using the urea production method disclosed in Ennenbach et al. to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results because Paunonen et al. provides guidance of an integrated pulp mill CCA factory that recycles the produced ammonia back into the process as urea, and Ennenbach et al. provides further guidance of a method to produce urea from an ammonia production process such as the released ammonia in CCA production.
In regards to claim 8 and 19, Saxell et al. discloses that ammonia is released during the CCA production (see paragraph 0071-0072), and also discloses using ammonia as an auxiliary agent to decrease the degree of polymerization of the pulp (see paragraph 0035). Therefore, claim 8 is also prima facie obvious.
In regards to claim 11-12, the difference between Saxell et al. and the claimed invention is that Saxell et al. does not expressly disclose dissolving a pulp such that the dissolved pulp contains less than five percent hemicellulose and at least ninety percent cellulose content and further activating this dissolved pulp.
Saxell et al. discloses that the preferred pulp is of the dissolved type and has an alpha cellulose content above 93 wt % (see paragraph 29). Furthermore, as evidenced by Balkissoon et al., dissolved pulp is characterized by high cellulose content (>90%) usually termed alpha-cellulose, high brightness, and low macromolecular polydispersity (PDI) and a low hemicellulose content of <5% (see page 16611, left column second to last paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine Saxell et al. with Paunonen et al. and Ennenbach et al. before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by further dissolving the pulp disclosed in Saxell et al. such that the pulp contains less than five percent hemicellulose and at least ninety percent cellulose content and activating this dissolved pulp to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success because Saxell et al. provides guidance that the preferred pulp in their invention is of the dissolved type with alpha cellulose content above 93 wt %, and as evidenced by Balkissoon et al., dissolved pulp is characterized with a low hemicellulose content of <5%.
Claim(s) 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saxell et al. (US20170145119A1 in PTO-892) in view of Paunonen et al. (Journal of Cleaner Production, June 2019 in PTO-892) and Ennenbach et al. (EP2617708A1 in IDS filed on 05/19/2022), and as evidenced by Balkissoon et al. (Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery, 2023 in PTO-892), as applied to claims 1, 7-10, 12-13, and 19 above, and further in view of Miner et al. (Energy, 2002 in PTO-892).
The combined teachings of Saxell et al., Paunonen et al, and Ennenbach et al. are as described above. Furthermore, Ennenbach et al. discloses that flue gas may be originated from any source (see paragraph 0041).
The difference between the combined teachings of Saxell et al., Paunonen et al, and Ennenbach and the claimed invention is that the combined teachings of Saxell et al., Paunonen et al, and Ennenbach al. do not teach a flue gas system associated with a lime kiln, and the carbon dioxide is obtained from the flue gas of a lime kiln.
Miner et al. discloses carbon dioxide emissions from lime kilns in kraft pulp mills (see Abstract). Miner et al. discloses that lime kilns are an integral part of the chemical recovery system and a very common unit operation in the pulp and paper industry. Miner et al. discloses these mills accounted for 83% of the pulp produced in the US (see page 730 last paragraph to page 731 first paragraph).
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine Saxell et al., Paunonen et al., and Ennenbach et al. with Miner et al. before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by modifying the pulp mill disclosed in Paunonen et al. with the addition of a lime kiln and further using the carbon dioxide emission from the lime kiln for recycling released ammonia back to urea to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made these modifications with a reasonable expectation of success because Miner et al. discloses that lime kilns are widely used in kraft pulp mills and an integral part of the chemical recovery system, and Ennenbach et al. provides guidance that the flue gas containing carbon dioxide can originate from any source such as emission from lime kilns in kraft pulp mills.
Claim(s) 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saxell et al. (US20170145119A1 in PTO-892) in view of Paunonen et al. (Journal of Cleaner Production, June 2019) and Ennenbach et al. (EP2617708A1 in IDS filed on 05/19/2022), and as evidenced by Balkissoon et al. (Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery, 2023 in PTO-892), as applied to claims 1, 7-10, 12-13, and 19 above, and further in view of Tikka et al. (US5589033A in PTO-892)
The combined teachings of Saxell et al., Paunonen et al, and Ennenbach et al. are as described above. Furthermore, Saxell et al. teaches that ammonia may be added to the pulp as an alkalizing agent (see paragraph 0063).
The difference between the combined teachings of Saxell et al., Paunonen et al, and Ennenbach and the claimed invention is that the combined teachings of Saxell et al., Paunonen et al, and Ennenbach al. do not expressly teach using the released ammonia to neutralize prehydrolysate in the pulp.
Tikka et al. discloses processes for preparing pulp from lignin-containing cellulosic material (see Abstract) and particularly, a process for the production of a pulp which has a high content of alpha cellulose and can be used e.g. as dissolving pulp (see column 1 lines 10-15). Tikka et al. discloses that the process includes prehydrolyzing the cellulosic material in a reactor, so as to produce prehydrolyzed cellulosic material and hydrolysate, neutralizing the hydrolysate and the prehydrolyzed cellulosic material in the reactor with alkaline neutralizing liquor so as to produce neutralized hydrolysate and neutralized prehydrolyzed cellulosic material (see column 2 lines 6-22). Tikka et al. discloses the prehydrolyzing step involves the use of mineral acids such as sulfuric or hydrochloric acid cooking liquor (see column 4 lines 32-36). Tikka et al. discloses that the purpose of the neutralization step is to neutralize the hydrolysate remaining in the digester and that there is hydrolysate in both the free liquid outside the chips and also trapped and immobilized inside the chips (see column 4 lines 46-54). Tikka et al. also discloses that in addition to the primary neutralization function, the neutralization step also serves as an alkaline hemicellulose dissolving step, which leads to a further purified pulp with higher pulp viscosity and higher alpha cellulose content (see column 5, lines 3-12).
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine Saxell et al., Paunonen et al., and Ennenbach et al. with Tikka et al. before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by modifying the released ammonia as the alkalizing agent in the method of Saxell et al. to neutralize the prehydrolysate in dissolving pulp as disclosed by Tikka et al. to arrive to at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification with a reasonable expectation of success because Saxell et al. discloses using ammonia as an alkalizing agent for dissolved pulp, Paunonen et al. provides guidance of recycling chemicals such as ammonia back into the production of CCA, and Tikka et al. provides further guidance that acidic hydrolysates can be present in dissolving pulp, and that neutralizing hydrolysates also serves as an alkaline hemicellulose dissolving step that can lead to a more purified pulp with higher viscosity and higher alpha cellulose content..
Claim(s) 4-5 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saxell et al. (US20170145119A1 in PTO-892) in view of Paunonen et al. (Journal of Cleaner Production, June 2019 in PTO-892) and Ennenbach et al. (EP2617708A1 in IDS filed on 05/19/2022), and as evidenced by Balkissoon et al. (Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery, 2023 in PTO-892), as applied to claims 1, 7-10, 12-13, and 19 above, and further in view of Appel et al. (US20060004237A1 in PTO-892).
The combined teachings of Saxell et al., Paunonen et al, and Ennenbach et al. are as described above. Furthermore, Saxell et al. suggests that even though their CCA production is efficient and reduces washing and waste water treatment, unwanted by-products in waste water such as unreacted urea or ammonia is still generated (see paragraph 0056).
The difference between the combined teachings of Saxell et al., Paunonen et al, and Ennenbach and the claimed invention is that the combined teachings of Saxell et al., Paunonen et al, and Ennenbach do not teach wherein a nitrogen-containing wastewater is led to an evaporation plant or wastewater treatment plant to produce dry nitrogen fertilizers.
Appel et al. discloses the processing of waste and low-value products to produce useful materials in reliable purities and compositions, at acceptable cost, and with high energy efficiency (see Abstract). Appel et al. discloses the basic process of their invention is designed to handle potentially any waste or low-value product including paper-pulp effluent (wastewater) and byproducts of chemical wood-pulping (see paragraph 0048). Appel et al. discloses these useful materials include products such as fuel oil, fertilizer, and specialty organic chemicals (see paragraph 0028). Appel et al. discloses in their processing method that a produced water may be subject to concentration, such as by evaporation, producing a water condensate that may be recycled within the process of the present invention, and a concentrate that is dispatched to a concentrate storage. Appel et al. discloses that the concentrate, which largely comprises of a slurry of amino acids, glycerol and, potentially ammonium salts such as ammonium sulfate or phosphate, will typically have commercial value as, for example, fertilizers known as “fish solubles” that are sold in domestic garden stores (see paragraph 104). Appel et al. exemplifies a pilot plant utilizing their waste processing technique to produce a fertilizer (see Example 1, paragraphs 0143-151).
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine Saxell et al., Paunonen et al., and Ennenbach et al. with Appel et al. before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by further processing the nitrogen containing wastewater generated in Saxell et al. into a dry fertilizer using the waste processing technique disclosed by Appel et al. to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results because Saxell et al. discloses their method generates wastewater containing urea, and Appel et al. provides guidance of converting wastewater generated from pulping processes into fertilizers.
Claim(s) 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saxell et al. (US20170145119A1 in PTO-892) in view of Paunonen et al. (Journal of Cleaner Production, June 2019 in PTO-892) and Ennenbach et al. (EP2617708A1 in IDS filed on 05/19/2022), and as evidenced by Balkissoon et al. (Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery, 2023 in PTO-892), as applied to claims 1, 7-10, 12-13, and 19 above, and further in view of Castro et al. (Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2002 in PTO-892).
The combined teachings of Saxell et al., Paunonen et al, and Ennenbach et al. are as described above.
The difference between the combined teachings of Saxell et al., Paunonen et al, and Ennenbach and the claimed invention is that the combined teachings of Saxell et al., Paunonen et al, and Ennenbach do not teach wherein the activation of the pulp is carried out at a fiberline of the chemical pulp mill.
Castro et al. discloses a detailed control study of the fiber line of a pulp mill process (see Abstract). Castro et al. discloses that pulp mills are highly integrated process from the feedstock to the final products and consists of two major processes: the fiber line and the chemical recovery loop (see page 1311 left column under section “Pulp Mill Process Description”). Castro et al. provides a schematic shown in Figure 1 of the fiber-line process in pulp mills (see page 1311). Castro et al. discloses that the main goal of the fiber line is to remove the majority of the lignin from the wood and to achieve a certain brightness coefficient by the end of bleaching. Castro et al. discloses these processes are achieved with chemicals such as sodium hydroxide (NaOH), sodium hydrosulfide (NaSH), oxygen, and chlorine dioxide. Furthermore, Castro et al. discloses that the pulp goes through additional washing to remove dissolved lignin and chemicals to be recycled (see page 1311 left column under section “Pulp Mill Process Description”).
Here, the removal of lignin from the wood pulp is being interpreted as activating the pulp to decrease degree of polymerization of the pulp because lignin is being removed from the wood pulp by chemical treatment with NaOH, NaSH, oxygen, and chlorine dioxide.
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine Saxell et al., Paunonen et al., and Ennenbach et al. with Castro et al. by modifying the pulp mill disclosed in Paunonen et al. with the fiber line process disclosed in Castro et al. to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success because Castro et al. provides guidance that pulp mills are divided into two major process of a fiber line and a chemical recovery loop.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,584,804 (‘804) in view of Saxell et al. (US20170145119A1 in PTO-892).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of ‘804 recites “A method for controlling discharges of nitrogen compounds while producing cellulose carbamate, the method comprising: microcrystalline cellulose is produced from chemical pulp produced at a pulp mill as the chemical pulp is subjected to acid hydrolysis to form the microcrystalline cellulose and hydrolysate, and reacting the microcrystalline cellulose with urea to produce cellulose carbamate during which ammonia is released, wherein the microcrystalline cellulose production and the cellulose carbamate production are integrated to the pulp mill having a flue gas system that handles flue gases, wherein carbon dioxide from flue gases is reacted with the released ammonia to produce the urea, which is used in the carbamate production”. Claim 7 of ‘804 recites “wherein the chemical pulp is a bleach fibrous cellulosic wood pulp”. Claim 2 of ‘804 recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein the flue gas system is attached to a lime kiln, and the carbon dioxide is obtained from flue gases produced in the lime kiln.” Claim 3 of ‘804 recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein the released ammonia is used to neutralize hydrolysate and/or acidic wastewater from the production of the microcrystalline cellulose.”. Claims 13 and 14 of ‘804 recite “comprising feeding at least a portion of nitrogen containing wastewater from the production of the cellulose carbamate to an evaporation plant which concentrates the nitrogen containing wastewater to produce dry nitrogen fertilizers” and “conveying nitrogen-containing wastewater from the production of the cellulose carbamate to a wastewater treatment plant of the pulp mill to be used as nutrient”.
The difference between the claims of ‘804 and the claimed invention is that the claims of ‘804 does not recite a dissolving pulp or kraft pulp and an activating step to decrease degree of polymerization of the dissolving or kraft pulp.
Saxell et al. discloses a method for manufacturing cellulose carbamate (CCA) (see Abstract). Saxell et al. discloses that the method comprises of a) providing a never-dried pulp, b) adding urea and mixing said pulp with said urea, c) mechanically treating said mixture, d) drying the mixture, and e) heating the relatively dry mixture, thus providing a cellulose carbamate. (see paragraphs 0016-0020). Saxell et al. discloses that the never-dried pulp may be a chemical pulp or kraft pulp (see paragraph 0028). Saxell et al. discloses the pulp is preferably a dissolved type and derived from hardwood or softwood such as pine, spruce, cedar, etc. (see paragraph 0029). Saxell et al. also exemplifies that the pulp in their method was taken directly from a pulp mill (see Example 1, paragraph 0070). Saxell et al. discloses that an auxiliary agent such as an alkaline metal hydroxide, ammonia, or hydrogen peroxide may be added to the pulp to decrease the degree of polymerization (see paragraph 0035), and that this auxiliary agent may be added before urea or at the same time with urea or after urea (see paragraph 0063). Saxell et al. discloses that ammonia gases were produced and removed from a reactor after the addition of hydrogen peroxide and urea to the pulp (see paragraph 0071-0072). Saxell et al. discloses that their CCA production is efficient and reduces washing and waste water treatment (see paragraph 0056).
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the claims of ‘804 and Saxell et al. by substituting the microcrystalline cellulose recited in the claims of ‘804 with a dissolved or kraft pulp as disclosed in Saxell et al. and further substituting the acid hydrolysis step with the addition of an auxiliary agent such as hydrogen peroxide to decrease the degree of polymerization to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification with a reasonable expectation of success because Saxell et al. discloses that their cellulose carbamate production method is efficient and reduces washing and waste water treatment.
Conclusion
No claim is found allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID H CHO whose telephone number is (571)270-0691. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.H.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1693
/SCARLETT Y GOON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1693